On War and its promoters.
History appears to repeat, and one would think that with the acuity and science of investigative journalism in all its forms, the world would have had revealed to its awestruck masses, that 'War is a Racket'. However this simple fact is occulted - go figure...

Sunday, 28 January 2018

United States (US) vs Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?

This essay was written for the benefit of the New Zealand Parliament's Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) select committee's Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty examination process required by Parliament's Standing Orders. The paper was written for and delivered with my public evidence 28 April 2016.

As well as this paper I provided the FADT committee with a dozen papers addressing various aspects of the TPP and its implications, most to the treaty examination March/April 2016 and a few to the subsequent TPP legislation select committee hearings conducted mid 2016.

I place the essay here as it is very relevant to the consideration of the relationship between Aotearoa NZ and the United States.

The truth about the 9/11 Crime and the resulting Global War on Terror (GWOT) a global and endless war that ought be considered World War III is missing from the Official Information records. I will follow with a post about my knowledge of those issues in the near future.

Realism is what follows. Please hold in mind the fact that New Zealand is a partner to the UK/US Five Eyes or Echelon spying agreement, which makes NZ a willing and complicit partner in the multitude of International Crimes and Aggressions around our planetary home!

If you are not interested in reality and wish to maintain a fantasy view of the US mafia state (I also refer to it as the United States of Aggression), please stop reading now!

I
wrote the GCSB and NZSIS asking 37 questions relating to our
warmaking since the events of the 11th
September 2001 known as 9/11. One question that I asked the two
security services, to which they provided a substantial answer, was
in respect to the definition of the National Interest2;

Most
people who reside in Aotearoa New Zealand are ethical or moral
characters. I’ve spoken to many of your political peers and they
all desire security and peace. They also want prosperity and the
ability to do the best they can for their constituents. Sure there is
a bit of empire building and pork-barrelling in any game that
involves people with power or seeking favour – hopefully this is
usually reasonably discernible (no institution is free of corruption
– the trick is to ensure that the corruption is not in the
fundamentals of the system) in the relatively transparent NZ
political economy.

The
point being that most of the politicians I meet are reasonable
people. I’ve met hundreds of local government politicians and their
administrations in the work I’ve undertaken in the past several
years as a public advocate in relation to the TPP treaty.

A
reasonable person is the entity that the Westminster system is
designed to foster and relies upon for its general consent. A
reasonable and genuinely liberal character is the epitome of the
classically trained enlightenment age gentleman and lady. We were
approaching civilisation with liberal values in the middle of the
nineteenth century with the classical philosophical observations of
John Stuart Mill.3
Is the relative size of the middle class a measure of civilisation?
The middle class most benefit from diverse cultural offerings and the
trappings of humanistic civilisation. It is the upper middle class
that lead society and set the pace of change, they are the managers
and professionals and academics who provide the intellectual
foundations. US middle class has been losing numbers at both the top
and bottom.4

This
graph highlights the effect of US government policy settings over the
long term:

Inflation
adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the
top 1% and four of the five quintiles, between 1979 and 2005 (gains
by top 1% are reflected by bottom bar; bottom quintile by top bar).5

The
USA figures reflect a global trend, which is hardly surprising given
the economic system the world largely follows is dictated from
imperatives that suit USA interests. The following tract is from a
1994 assessment ‘The arcana of empire and the dilemma of American
national security’ on US Foreign Policy:

The
demand for new strategies for a new world springs from the assumption
that the Soviet "threat" fundamentally determined US
diplomacy from 1945 until the end of the Cold War. Now that the USSR
has disappeared, it would seem reasonable that American security
policy would change profoundly. But this view presupposes that
Washington's Cold War grand strategy was--and that foreign policy in
general is--a response to the pressures of other states. If, however,
US security policy has been primarily determined not by external
threats but by the apparent demands of America' s economy, then it
would be no wonder that, despite the collapse of the Berlin Wall,
those who call for new strategies are unable to devise them.
Persuasively, albeit unwittingly, this is the argument that the
foreign policy community advances today in its post-Cold War
strategic reassessments. It is a view that traps the United States in
a quandary, for as long as that community believes that America's
prosperity depends upon its current national security strategy, the
country cannot free itself from the exhausting and perilous task of
ordering the world, a task that was supposed to end with the Cold
War. To appreciate the dilemma that arises when the United States
seeks its domestic well-being in sources beyond its borders, we must
examine those internal imperatives that dictate our foreign policy;
in other words, we must explore that policy from the inside out.6

Only
5 years later the prophetic ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ by
the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank states;

"It
is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow.
Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the
mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are
directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a
choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to
secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American
peace" (p. 76).

The
building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD,"
because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the
world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to
maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic
areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying
reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD"
propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the
coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of
waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way
of U.S. global preeminence.

Their
flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a
combative posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather
engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only
this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very
definition, cannot be imposed by force.

Following
is the preamble to the document:

"As
the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the
United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past
decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new
century favorable to American principles and interests?

"[What
we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both
present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

"Of
course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise.
America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe,
Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we
invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the
20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to
embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project’s
Statement of Principles).

Four
Vital Missions

PNAC
members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by
U. S. global leadership," but claim that "current American
armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.

Homeland
Defense.
America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear
deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains
essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges.
While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must
counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and
weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to
deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the
American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for
U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.

Large
Wars.
Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to
rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and
also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions
where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the
'two-war' standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning
over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to
account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

Constabulary
Duties.
Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace
in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A
decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have
shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new,
long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and
other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in
vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today’s most frequent
missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of
long-term, independent constabulary operations.

Transform
U.S. Armed Forces.
Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called
'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of
advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as
a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure
and defense budgets" (p. 6).

"In
conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for
maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and
distinct from one another – none should be considered a 'lesser
included case' of another, even though they are closely related and
may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the
failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions
must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build
missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and
compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces
that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously
cannot protect American global interests and allies. Neglect or
withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the likelihood of
larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American
interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s
challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an
early end" (p. 13).8

One
of the crucial calls by the RAD report was the following under the
heading; ‘Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force’

...
The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in
warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the
Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo,
communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare.
Moreover, the use of the Internet to spread computer viruses reveals
how easy it can be to disrupt the normal functioning of commercial
and even military computer networks. Any nation which cannot assure
the free and secure access of its citizens to these systems will
sacrifice an element of its sovereignty and its power...9

We
also require dominance in space for the US and our allies (which must
include NZ);

Space
and Cyberspace

No
system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing
sensors and weapons in space. Although this would appear to be
creating a potential new theater of warfare, in fact space has been
militarized for the better part of four decades. Weather,
communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites are
increasingly essential elements in American military power. Indeed,
U.S. armed forces are uniquely dependent upon space. As the 1996
Joint Strategy Review, a precursor to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense
Review, concluded, “Space is already inextricably linked to
military operations on land, on the sea, and in the air.” The
report of the National Defense Panel agreed: “Unrestricted use of
space has become a major strategic interest of the United States.”

The
RAD report places space warfare in crystal clarity in the following
passage;

Although
it may take several decades for the process of transformation to
unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be
vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take
place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the
world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots
manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing
fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned
craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces
may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and
information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some
small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could
be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and
aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing
navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a
theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come
to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and
commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants –will
become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of
attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit
sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological
warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful
tool.

This
is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of
transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and
direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications
for continued American military preeminence will be profound. As
argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces
already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in
the realms of intelligence, command and control, and long range
precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow
the armed services to begin an “interim,” short- to medium-term
process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and
operational concepts – designs and concepts different than those
contemplated by the current defense program – to maximize the
capabilities that already exist. But these must be viewed as merely a
way-station toward a more thoroughgoing transformation.10

This
on the revolution coming in the art of war;

Absent
a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of
the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the
Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in
the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the
carrier age.11

Which
brings us back to the commencement of this part of the report to the
following statement which is the nub of the thinking.

Any
serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger
framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and
defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic
pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational
concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that
would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation
strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from
the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and
presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and
would trouble American allies.

Further,
the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary
change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation
as much as the requirements of current missions...12

This
is the point where one then introduces the catastrophic and
catalyzing event known as 9/11.

I
offered evidence to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select
Committee in respect to the then Countering Foreign Terrorist
Fighters Legislation Bill, where I identify clearly that the US
authority’s 9/11 Commission report misrepresents the facts of that
event. This evidence was not questioned by the FADT committee members
bar some observations by the Hon Phil Goff in respect to the role of
NZ service personnel in Iraq to gain a feed at the ‘oil for food’
trough. The questions I directed to our GCSB and NZSIS on the 25th
December 2015 were aimed at unravelling the 9/11 misrepresentation.
Our Intelligence organisations appear to have a view of the world
that doesn’t match a physical reality easily uncovered by
discerning research in publicly available material.13

Made
to order terrorist strike advances the project almost as if the PNAC
report was a blueprint. It is of note the numerous signatories of the
Rebuilding America’s Defences report that were awarded plum
positions in the US administration. John Pilger awarded journalist in
his film ‘Breaking the Silence’14
provides insight into the PNAC personnel and their roles;

John
Pilger dissects the truth and lies in the 'war on terror'.
Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies
between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the
facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington,
DC. In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised
Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies".
Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious
fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue
routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, America has its
military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords
who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban".

In
Washington, Pilger conducts a series of remarkable interviews with
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and leading
Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security. These people, and the other
architects of the Project for the New American Century, were
dismissed as 'the crazies' by the first Bush Administration in the
early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive
strikes and world domination.15

The
case for the US and the coalition of the willing being guilty of
waging aggressive war is well made. It is also well made the case for
the US being the main architect for most of the wars since 1945 which
provided the closure of World War Two.16

The
USA and the coalition of the willing are guilty of waging aggressive
war. The aggressive war standard was determined as the test for
criminality at the Nuremburg Trials organised to determine World War
2 culpability. Aggressive war encompasses all other war crimes. The
US prosecutor at Nuremberg

The
issue of war crimes was considered at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes
Commission in 2011.

The
Star (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) reports: Bush Found Guilty of War
Crimes KUALA
LUMPUR: The War Crimes Tribunal has convicted former US President
George W. Bush and seven of his associates as war criminals for
torture and inhumane treatment of war crime victims at US military
facilities.

However,
being a tribunal of conscience, the five-member panel chaired by
tribunal president judge Lamin Mohd Yunus had no power to enforce or
impose custodial sentence on the convicted eight.

“We
find the witnesses, who were victims placed in detention illegally by
the convicted persons and their government, are entitled to payment
of reparations,” said Lamin at a public hearing held in an open
court at the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War yesterday.

He
added that the tribunal’s award of reparations would be submitted
to the War Crimes Commission and recommended the victims to find a
judiciary entity that could enforce the verdict.

The
tribunal would also submit the finding and records of the proceedings
to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the
United Nations’ Security Council.17

The
trial conducted by the Allies at the conclusion of World War Two is
known as the Nuremberg Trial. It was established by the European
victors to try the Germans that were scape goated for the war.18

The
Nuremberg Principles for jurisdiction and the nature of the crimes
they considered from the text;

II.
JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article
6.

The
Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof
for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the
European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish
persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries,
whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any
of the following crimes.

The
following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual
responsibility:

(a)
CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or
waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan
or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b)
WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such
violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder,
ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose
of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or
ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of
hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction
of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by
military necessity;

(c)CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian
population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political,
racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any
crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in
violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders,
organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the
formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any
of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any
persons in execution of such plan.

Article
7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or
responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be
considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating
punishment.

Article
8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his
Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility,
but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal
determines that justice so requires.19

These
last are in effect part of the rationale for bringing the war crime
charges before you.

And
funny enough NZ has a seat at the Security Council, and has had a
turn as the Council Chair in July of 2015. And most of the people of
Aotearoa NZ are seekers of security and peace. Do our leadership
follow the lead and desires of the people of Aotearoa NZ.

Who
do we align with?

Are
theses players benign and seekers of peace and security?

If
the answer is yes then there is no issue, carry on. However that is
not the case.

Surely
it is timely to review the arrangement and work out if it suits our
ethical frame.

After the
financial crisis of 2007–08, inequality has further increase. As
William Lazonick puts it:

"Five years
after the official end of the Great Recession, corporate profits are
high, and the stock markets are booming. Yet most Americans are not
sharing in the recovery. While the top 0.1% of income recipients –
which include most of the highest-ranking corporate executives –
reap almost all the income gains, good jobs keep disappearing, and
new employment opportunities tend to be insecure and underpaid."

8 "Rebuilding
America's Defenses" – Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S.
Global Hegemony, Summary by Bette Stockbauer; ‘Some people have
compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored
until after the war was over’
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

16 It
is well established the US is a war criminal. The issue is ‘what
to do about it?’ Can we carry on being an ally and trading partner
to the largest despot on the planet, one who is world policeman in
Pax Americana? Who can continue and maintain their professed status
as a humanitarian, following humanitarian law?